Fitch v. San Francisco Unified School District

Filing 71

ORDER (corrected) Re: STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 59 Order, 67 Clerk's Notice, 65 Order, APPLICATION FOR ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF IN OCTOBER filed by San Francisco Unified School District. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/17/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 7/29/16. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 7/29/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2016)

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 70 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6

Richard M. Rogers, #045843
Law Office of Richard M. Rogers
100 Bush Street, #1980
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415/981-9788
Facsimile:
415/981-9798
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sylvia Fitch

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Eugene B. Elliot, State Bar No. 111475
BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SYLVIA FITCH,

18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02769-SI
Case filed:
Case reassigned:
Trial date:

06/19/15
08/14/15, 09/11/15
03/13/17

20
21
22

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

APPLICATION FOR ORDER REGARDING
DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF IN OCTOBER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendants.

23

Hon. Susan Illston

24
25

The parties hereby apply to the Court for an order directing non-party Abdul Latif to appear for

26

deposition on October 17, 25, 26 or 28, 2016. In orders filed on June 9, 2016 and June 29, 2016, the

27

Court held Mr. Latif in contempt for his failure to obey two subpoenas to appear for deposition. Copies

28

of the orders are attached as Exhibit A.
1
APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Fitch v San Francisco Unified School District, U.S. District Court Case No.: 3:15-cv-02769-SI

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 70 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 8

1
2
3
4

The June 29, 2016 order directed Mr. Latif to appear for deposition on June 29, 2016 and that if
he failed to do so he would be subjected to further sanctions. Mr. Latif did not appear as directed.
On June 29, 2016, the Court held a status conference in this case and found it appropriate to order
the U.S. Marshal to serve Mr. Latif with copies of the June 9, 2016 and June 29, 2016 orders.

5

The June 29, 2016 order also directed Mr. Latif to appear for deposition on July 28, 2016 at 1:30

6

p.m. The U.S. Marshal has been unable to effect service because it appears that Mr. Latif is evading

7

service.

8

Mr. Latif will return to work in August. Plaintiff’s counsel has requested that Mr. Latif’s

9

deposition be set for a date in October. As Mr. Latif will be at work, the District can assist with service.

10

Because the District and plaintiff have been unable to successfully secure Mr. Latif’s appearance, it is

11

appropriate to order the United States Marshal Service to serve Mr. Latif with a copy of this order, as

12

well as the June 9, 2016 and June 29, 2016 orders. One U.S. Marshal shall be sufficient to effectuate

13

service. Plaintiff shall pay the U.S. Marshal Service the fees and costs for service, which is $65 per hour

14

for the Marshal and $.54 per mile for mileage.

15

Both plaintiff’s counsel and the District’s counsel are available on October 17, 25, 26 or 28. A

16

status conference shall be set for the same date as the deposition to determine what sanctions may be

17

warranted should Mr. Latif fail to appear.

18
19

Dated: July 28, 2016

LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD M. ROGERS

20
By:

21
22

/s/ Richard Rogers
Richard M. Rogers
Attorney for Plaintiff
SYLVIA FITCH

23
24

Dated: July 28, 2016

BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL

25
26

By:

27

/s/ Eugene Elliot
Eugene B. Elliot
Attorney for Defendant
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

28
2
APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Fitch v San Francisco Unified School District, U.S. District Court Case No.: 3:15-cv-02769-SI

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 70 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 8

1

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

2

I, EUGENE ELLIOT, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

3

APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF; [PROPOSED] ORDER. I have

4

obtained concurrence in and authorization of the filing of this document from Richard M. Rogers,

5

attorney for Plaintiff SYLVIA FITCH. I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for

6

subsequent production for the Court if so ordered or for inspection upon request by a party.

7

Dated: July 28, 2016

BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL

8
By:

9
10

/s/ Eugene Elliot
Eugene B. Elliot
Attorney for Defendant
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

11
12

ORDER

13
14

Mr. Latif is hereby ORDERED to appear for his deposition on October 17, 2016 at 10 00at
:

15

Courtroom 1 on the 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. If Mr. Latif appears for

16
17

his deposition, he will “purge” this finding of civil contempt. If Mr. Latif fails to appear for his
am
deposition, the Court will hold a hearing on October 17, 2016 at 10: 00 determine what sanctions,
to

18

including an order into custody and/or monetary sanctions, are warranted. The Court informs

19

Mr. Latif that disobedience of a court order is a serious matter and that further contumacious

20

conduct will have significant consequences.

21

The Court finds it appropriate to order the United States Marshal Service to serve Mr. Latif with a

22

copy of this order, as well as the June 9, 2016 and June 29, 2016 orders. The Court finds one U.S.

23

Marshal shall be sufficient to effectuate service. Plaintiff shall pay the U.S. Marshal Service the fees and

24

costs for service, which is $65 per hour for the Marshal and $.54 per mile for mileage.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: 7/29/16

27

By:
Susan Illston
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
3
APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ABDUL LATIF; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Fitch v San Francisco Unified School District, U.S. District Court Case No.: 3:15-cv-02769-SI

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 70 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 8

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 59 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 2
70
07/29/16
5 8

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYLVIA FITCH,

Case No. 15-cv-02769-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

ORDER HOLDING ABDUL LATIF IN
CIVIL CONTEMPT AND ORDERING
MR. LATIF TO APPEAR FOR
DEPOSITION ON JUNE 29, 2016 AT 10
AM IN COURTROOM 1

12
13
14

On June 9, 2016, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause
why non-party Abdul Latif should not be held in contempt for his failure to obey two subpoenas to
15
appear for deposition. Mr. Latif is an employee of defendant San Francisco Unified School
16
17
18
19

District. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant attended the hearing. Counsel for defendant stated
that defendant had personally served Mr. Latif with the Court's orders setting the June 9, 2016
hearing. Mr. Latif did not appear at the hearing, nor has Mr. Latif contacted the Court to provide
any explanation for his failure to appear for deposition.

20
21

According to plaintiff's motion and supporting declaration, Mr. Latif failed to appear for
deposition on April 18, 2016, despite having been personally served with a subpoena on March 9,

22
2016, and after having avoided nine attempts for service at his place of employment in February,
23
24
25
26
27
28

2016.

The parties agreed that defendant would serve a new subpoena setting Mr. Latif’s

deposition for May 18, 2016. Defense counsel confirmed on May 16, 2016, that Mr. Latif had
been served. Mr. Latif again failed to appear for deposition on May 18, 2016.
Subpoenas issued by attorneys are issued on behalf of the court and are treated as court
orders. See United States Sec. & Exh. Comm'n v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 2010).

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 59 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2
70
07/29/16
6 8

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) allows a court to "hold in contempt a person who, having

2

been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it." "A civil

3

contempt order must be accompanied by a 'purge' condition allowing the contemnor an

4

opportunity to comply with the order before payment of a fine or other sanction becomes due."

5

Martínez v. City of Pittsburg, No. C11–01017 SBA(LB), 2012 WL 699462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

6

1, 2012).
To establish civil contempt, plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

8

Latif violated a specific order of the court (here, the two subpoenas). The Court finds that plaintiff

9

has made that showing. Mr. Latif has not provided any explanation for his failure to appear for his

10

deposition. In response to the Court's question, counsel for defendant stated he was unaware of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

any explanation for Mr. Latif's failure to appear for deposition.

12

Accordingly, upon this record the Court finds that Mr. Latif is in contempt of court. Mr.

13

Latif is hereby ORDERED to appear for his deposition on June 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at

14

Courtroom 1 on the 17th floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco. If Mr. Latif appears

15

for his deposition, he will "purge" this finding of civil contempt. If Mr. Latif fails to appear

16

for his deposition, the Court will hold a hearing on June 29, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. to determine

17

what sanctions, including an order into custody and/or monetary sanctions, are warranted.

18

The Court informs Mr. Latif that disobedience of a court order is a serious matter and that

19

further contumacious conduct will have significant consequences.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: June 9, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 65 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 2
70
07/29/16
7 8

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYLVIA FITCH,

Case No. 15-cv-02769-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL
SERVICE TO SERVE CONTEMNOR
ABDUL LATIF AND ORDERING MR.
LATIF TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION
ON JULY 28, 2016 AT 1:30 PM IN
COURTROOM 1

12
13
In an order filed on June 9, 2016, the Court held non-party Abdul Latif in contempt for his
14
failure to obey two subpoenas to appear for deposition. That order also ordered Mr. Latif to
15
appear for his deposition on June 29, 2016, and informed Mr. Latif that if he failed to do so he
16
would be subject to further sanctions. A copy of the June 9, 2016 order is attached to this order.
17
On June 29, 2016, the Court held a status conference in this case. Counsel for plaintiff and
18
defendant appeared at the conference. Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that the process
19
server had been unable to serve the June 9, 2016 order on Mr. Latif because the person at the
20
address provided for Mr. Latif is avoiding service. As plaintiff has made numerous unsuccessful
21
attempts to serve Mr. Latif with the June 9, 2016 order, the Court finds it appropriate to order the

22
United States Marshal Service to serve Mr. Latif with a copy of this order as well as the June 9,
23
2016 order. The Court finds that one U.S. Marshal shall be sufficient to effectuate service.
24
Plaintiff shall pay the U.S. Marshal Service the fees and costs for service, which is $65 per hour
25
for the Marshal and $.54 per mile for mileage.
26
Mr. Latif is hereby ORDERED to appear for his deposition on July 28, 2016 at 1:30
27
p.m. at Courtroom 1 on the 17th floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco. If Mr. Latif
28

Case 3:15-cv-02769-SI Document 65 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2
70
07/29/16
8 8

1

appears for his deposition, he will "purge" this finding of civil contempt. If Mr. Latif fails to

2

appear for his deposition, the Court will hold a hearing on July 28, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. to

3

determine what sanctions, including an order into custody and/or monetary sanctions, are

4

warranted. The Court informs Mr. Latif that disobedience of a court order is a serious

5

matter and that further contumacious conduct will have significant consequences.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: June 29, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2